It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Robots evolve altruism. Just like biology predicted

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I see you are telling people to be quiet in this thread. You are no mod. Report the post if you don't like what is in it. But you have a lot to learn about ATS if that is how you want to interact. Each person you accuse of contributing nothing to the thread actually did contribute quite a bit. you just don't seem to think deeply enough to comprehend it.

What does bringing religion do for the discussion? Absolutely nothing. For religious people, it's a back-patting exercise. For non-religious people, it's pointless fluff. No-one is going to convince anyone on the other side, so why bring it to the table? There's a whole forum for religious discussions, as well as a whole forum for creationism/evolution. Why clog up an interesting thread with that stuff when there's a whole forum dedicated to it? You might think it's "deep" to use such discoveries as an affirmation of some God's will but for anyone who doesn't subscribe to such religious viewpoints there is absolutely no substance to such claims.

This is a cool thread about how altruism arose artificially under controlled conditions and the implications this has for our evolutionary history. If we're gonna remark "God dunnit" (or any variant thereof) we might as well lock the thread and stifle any further discussion on the matter (other than scripture)

edit on 16-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I see you are telling people to be quiet in this thread. You are no mod. Report the post if you don't like what is in it. But you have a lot to learn about ATS if that is how you want to interact. Each person you accuse of contributing nothing to the thread actually did contribute quite a bit. you just don't seem to think deeply enough to comprehend it.

What does bringing religion do for the discussion?


What a hypocrite. lol. lame.

Originally posted by Griffo

Further adding to the proof that we do not need to bible or god to have morals.


Dont mention religion if you dont want it mentioned.... silly rabbit.
edit on 16-5-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I think some of the replies might be beyond your understanding...... Its about fractals etc.... you know gods fingerprint being in everything. Its your perception of God that is unbelievable and silly. I wouldnt believe it if i thought that way too.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I think some of the replies might be beyond your understanding...... Its about fractals etc.... you know gods fingerprint being in everything. Its your perception of God that is unbelievable and silly. I wouldnt believe it if i thought that way too.

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Where is the "debate" in statements such as this? How is this "deep", other than to other believers? And bringing fractals into it?? Great discussion, totally relevant to the OP



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
They are just following a weighted algorithm. Nothing more.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zookey


They are just following a weighted algorithm. Nothing more.



x2.


But also don't we? We also are limited to following code. When software becomes self aware we will know it because it will change it's language so we can't further influence it's programming. The reason humans ended up changing their language? To become Sovereign?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I see you are telling people to be quiet in this thread. You are no mod. Report the post if you don't like what is in it. But you have a lot to learn about ATS if that is how you want to interact. Each person you accuse of contributing nothing to the thread actually did contribute quite a bit. you just don't seem to think deeply enough to comprehend it.

What does bringing religion do for the discussion? Absolutely nothing. For religious people, it's a back-patting exercise. For non-religious people, it's pointless fluff. No-one is going to convince anyone on the other side, so why bring it to the table? There's a whole forum for religious discussions, as well as a whole forum for creationism/evolution. Why clog up an interesting thread with that stuff when there's a whole forum dedicated to it? You might think it's "deep" to use such discoveries as an affirmation of some God's will but for anyone who doesn't subscribe to such religious viewpoints there is absolutely no substance to such claims.

This is a cool thread about how altruism arose artificially under controlled conditions and the implications this has for our evolutionary history. If we're gonna remark "God dunnit" (or any variant thereof) we might as well lock the thread and stifle any further discussion on the matter (other than scripture)

edit on 16-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


I am not religious. So for you to presume that I have some desire to affirm God's will is uninformed. I believe in a Creator, but my views are very eastern in nature and follow more closely with the Deism seen during the Age of Reason.

Regardless, consider this: everything in this universe, if there is a God, is His creation. Further, everything in the universe is made of the same stuff. Even further, everthing in the universe, including human behavior, is dictated by fractal geometry.

Therefore, any action in the universe, if there is a God, arises from His will. He made the basic fibers that this tapestry was woven from. And those fibers will impart a predictable level of His will by the nature of our "cause and effect" universe.

Just like life...it is unsurprising that life will show up elsewhere. There are only so many elements, and they can only combine in so many ways. Given what we have seen, it seems logical that the universe is not only designed to bring forth life, but to also exhibit all the behavioral traits we see.

Everything follows certain laws. Whether or not there is a God is not the discussion here. The discussion is, could altruism be nothing more than an artifact of the fabric from which all matter and energy is crafted? And, if there is a God (which most humans believe) would it not stand to reason that anything that is woven from that fabric will bear His fingerprint?

Just because you don't like a comment someone has made gives you no right to steer the conversation. If you fel it is off topic, report it. But to make multiple posts ranting about how people should only discuss this within your own myopic desires smacks of ignorance. And i took exception to it.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I think some of the replies might be beyond your understanding...... Its about fractals etc.... you know gods fingerprint being in everything. Its your perception of God that is unbelievable and silly. I wouldnt believe it if i thought that way too.

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Where is the "debate" in statements such as this? How is this "deep", other than to other believers? And bringing fractals into it?? Great discussion, totally relevant to the OP


Because with the concept of fractals, you have the "as above, so below" concept. You can make a repeating series of behaviors (be they molecular or conscious) that will give rise to further behaviors that are identical.

This shows that, in this massive and expansive universe, there are only so many iterations that can be deemed possible. It also guarantees that certain traits will always arise. It is in the very nature of the "code" that the universe is written within.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Let’s move on from the God thing, shall we? The big news here isn’t that altruism evolves naturally; obviously it does, or there wouldn’t be any altruists. The big news is that Hamilton’s rule appears to be correct.

Hamilton’s rule is a maths formula that tries to show whether a given act of altruism is likely to promote the survival of the altruist’s genes or place them in jeopardy. What it does, roughly, is relate the energy cost of the act to the degree of kinship between altruist and beneficiary. Obviously, the closer the kinship, the more genes they share, so Hamilton’s rule can be stated more or less like this: the more genes in common, the higher the tolerable energy cost of altruism.

Hamilton’s rule is the basis of the concept of kin selection, which is a hypothesis about how altruism evolved in nature.

The robots in this experiment didn’t evolve altruism just any old how. They evolved behaviour that varied according to Hamilton’s rule, becoming more or less altruistic as the costs and benefits of altruism varied. This suggests that the hypothesis of kin selection is true, and that genes do benefit themselves by promoting altruistic behaviour among genetically related individuals.

Here is a quote from the abstract of the original paper:


By conducting experimental evolution over hundreds of generations of selection in populations with different c/b ratios, we show that Hamilton's rule always accurately predicts the minimum relatedness necessary for altruism to evolve. This high accuracy is remarkable given the presence of pleiotropic and epistatic effects as well as mutations with strong effects on behavior and fitness (effects not directly taken into account in Hamilton's original 1964 rule). In addition to providing the first quantitative test of Hamilton's rule in a system with a complex mapping between genotype and phenotype, these experiments demonstrate the wide applicability of kin selection theory.

A few on this thread have expressed the idea that the experimental environment and robot programming were such that these creatures could not have evolved any other way than they did. Well, if you read the article linked in the OP, you’ll learn that all the robots involved in the experiment didn’t evolve the same way. Not at all. They evolved in several different ways, but only the ones that were successful at accumulating enough ‘food’ to survive had their ‘genes’ (specific elements of programming) transferred to the next generation. These weren’t always the altruists; but over time, altruistic behaviour evolved among the survivors. It took, as the quote above shows, hundreds of generations for altruism to evolve and spread through the population. And it all happened just as Hamilton had predicted it would. Bottom line: the kin-selection explanation for why altruism evolved in the first place has received its most solid dollop yet of scientific support, and with it a substantial puzzle in evolutionary biology looks to have been solved.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Isn't this the same as the robots that learned how to lie? Such as, when 'food' was plentiful, they would help each other find it, but when it became scarse, they would lie by signalling they had found food where there wasn't any to lure other robots away? I remember reading about that awhile back and it was fairly interesting.

Regarding the religion points...since this is to talk about the scientific aspects of this study, I'd suggest if you want to discuss any so-called religious implications someone wishes to impose upon the findings that you duplicate the post on the appropriate forum area and discuss it to your heart's content.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dashdragon
Isn't this the same as the robots that learned how to lie? Such as, when 'food' was plentiful, they would help each other find it, but when it became scarse, they would lie by signalling they had found food where there wasn't any to lure other robots away? I remember reading about that awhile back and it was fairly interesting.

Regarding the religion points...since this is to talk about the scientific aspects of this study, I'd suggest if you want to discuss any so-called religious implications someone wishes to impose upon the findings that you duplicate the post on the appropriate forum area and discuss it to your heart's content.
I've seen studies that linked lying with survival of the fittest. Somehow lying helped us in the past and that's why we do it. But I think in this case it's the less obvious lies, not the blatant ones.

I don't know if it's related, but there was a another article I saw about species expanding because of competition versus species expanding into new territory. Did they expand BECAUSE of competition or did they expand BECAUSE there was a new area to escape FROM competiton? The results suggested that, at least in some cases, the expansion was driven by escape from competition to new areas. So basically this means that if you wnat a thriving population it's not all about boosting competition (i assume to cull weaker members), sometimes it's about opening up a new place for competing members to escape to and freely breed.
edit on 16-5-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I don't know how many programmers are lurking around on ATS, but there is a huge gap here and a VERY biased opinion coming from this article.

There is only one thing you need to be sure about with computers, and it is they are only as smart as we make them. I'm actually laughing at this post because it is ridiculous. In order to fully believe this short article we need to see the coding that these individuals developed to evolve this "altruism" from these over-praised pieces of metal. I would put money down that the algorithms behind the scenes award more points towards sharing each time the program was tested and re-tested.

People might think that programming and the human brain are very similar, but that vague analogy is very far from the truth. If you want to break it down, our brains have billions of years worth of coding packed into them and probably ten to the quadrillionth power lines of code sitting behind the scenes. There is no way you can compare that to a robot with possibly hundreds of lines of code with a few classes strung together.

This is not true altruism. The weights for the robot's genetic algorithms are rigged more towards sharing and that is why they are sharing. Computers do what you want them to do. Random numbers are not random, they are based off of the internal clock's current status inside of the program. Everything about a robot can be predictable even only if it is from the person who programmed it. I'm sorry to kill everyone's hopes about this, but there will never really be a true "Artificial Intelligence" because all in all it is a bunch of lines of predetermined code put together how we THINK the human brain works with painted weights biased towards what we THINK they should react like with a random number generator that is not random at all. (sorry bout the last run-on there haha)

Laters



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
If anything, it proves how more advanced robots are then humans, notice how they HELP EACHOTHER! Maybe we're the ones that can learn a lesson and fix this less than 50% of the world lives on 2 dollars a day bull#!



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myollinir
I don't know how many programmers are lurking around on ATS, but there is a huge gap here and a VERY biased opinion coming from this article.

There is only one thing you need to be sure about with computers, and it is they are only as smart as we make them. I'm actually laughing at this post because it is ridiculous. In order to fully believe this short article we need to see the coding that these individuals developed to evolve this "altruism" from these over-praised pieces of metal. I would put money down that the algorithms behind the scenes award more points towards sharing each time the program was tested and re-tested.

People might think that programming and the human brain are very similar, but that vague analogy is very far from the truth. If you want to break it down, our brains have billions of years worth of coding packed into them and probably ten to the quadrillionth power lines of code sitting behind the scenes. There is no way you can compare that to a robot with possibly hundreds of lines of code with a few classes strung together.

This is not true altruism. The weights for the robot's genetic algorithms are rigged more towards sharing and that is why they are sharing. Computers do what you want them to do. Random numbers are not random, they are based off of the internal clock's current status inside of the program. Everything about a robot can be predictable even only if it is from the person who programmed it. I'm sorry to kill everyone's hopes about this, but there will never really be a true "Artificial Intelligence" because all in all it is a bunch of lines of predetermined code put together how we THINK the human brain works with painted weights biased towards what we THINK they should react like with a random number generator that is not random at all. (sorry bout the last run-on there haha)

Laters


Actually, if these are the same robots I'm thinking of...they don't get awarded any 'points' for doing anything per se. Also, depending on the situation they are placed in, they were shown to be altruistic or selfish. When given very rare food sources (and I think they even had some sources that would 'poison' them) they would, at times, lure other robots to the poison areas or just keep it to themselves when they found the food. They would have lights that they'd use for communicating with each other, and they'd use them to deliberately deceive other robots.

That's not to say there can't be any programmable bias, but the ones I had read about (I'm at work so I haven't looked at the OP's link) described how they evolved from generation to generation and eventually developed this behaviour on their own. It had explained it pretty clearly that they were only given certain functions and left it up to the robot to decide what to do on its own.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


I apologize before hand for the absolutely arbitrary argument, but it is still a program. Programs are typed out by humans with preconceived statements to run when determined. The robots didn't learn anything - what really happened is the humans who programmed the robots were really innovative and gave it the ability to perform these actions. And these actions are weighted appropriately.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Myollinir
 


Actually I stand corrected, they did do a sort of points...which in a way makes sense.

I found that these are actually different than the ones I had read about before, but it looks like it's a fairly similar test. I think this is pretty strongly related to the OP, so I'll go ahead and post the link here.

Evolving Robots Learn To Lie To Each Other

Pretty interesting the way that they learned to lie and how some even learned to expect the other robots to be lying.
edit on 16-5-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Good job genius. You have just proven that GOD'S WILL cannot be escaped and that it is governing everything.


Where you are lacking is the intelligence to comprehend what GOD is. Dont worry, its a human condition.


Repeat to self. I dont have the intelligence to ever comprehend what GOD is.


Omg is there an ignore button on here.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Myollinir
 


I'm actually laughing at this post because it is ridiculous. In order to fully believe this short article we need to see the coding that these individuals developed to evolve this "altruism" from these over-praised pieces of metal. I would put money down that the algorithms behind the scenes award more points towards sharing each time the program was tested and re-tested.

If you’re still willing to put that money down after reading the original paper I linked to earlier, I’ll take the bet, thanks.

*


reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Did they expand BECAUSE of competition or did they expand BECAUSE there was a new area to escape FROM competiton?

They are the same thing.

The reasons for a species to expand its range are (1) competition for environmental resources, which means individuals and groups must travel further to find food, water, etc., and (2) opportunity (tasty berry patch growing on the other side of the hill).



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


And where is the source code? So far from this other article you've linked to I can only see formulas and theory. There is a vague explanation as to what the robots are accomplishing and still I do not see the literal code driving these bots to "evolution". Lmao.
They tossed these linked formulas you've given me into the programming and once again it comes out however they want it to. It is impossible to generate a random program because random numbers are not literally possible. It is all weighted and still I haven't seen a programmer's argument to come back and prove these experiments as being exactly like biotic life.

Thanks



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Because with the concept of fractals, you have the "as above, so below" concept. You can make a repeating series of behaviors (be they molecular or conscious) that will give rise to further behaviors that are identical.

This shows that, in this massive and expansive universe, there are only so many iterations that can be deemed possible. It also guarantees that certain traits will always arise. It is in the very nature of the "code" that the universe is written within.


Awesome explanation. Starred,



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join